How we let them know

I regularly make the provocative statement that ambiguity is the main problem and I have seen leaders achieve remarkable gains simply by eliminating it. (I was once introduced as an “ambiguity assassin” and took it as a great compliment.) Eradicating ambiguity is a powerful tool in building more successful and resilient teams and organizations.

Last week, I asked a simple question: How would they know? If we have not told someone the impact of their behavior, we are holding them accountable for information they were never given. Mindreading is not in the job description. But for most leaders, even when they have the courage to bring it up, they have a major concern: how do I say it?

The hesitation is rarely about avoiding the truth altogether. More often, it’s about not wanting to come across as harsh, critical, or heavy-handed. There is a desire to preserve the relationship, to not shut someone down, to not become “that kind of boss.” So the instinct is to soften, to hint, or to wait for a better moment that never arrives.

We may think we are avoiding discomfort but in reality, we are avoiding clarity.

We may think we are avoiding discomfort but in reality, we are avoiding clarity. We may think we are introducing kindness when really, we are introducing ambiguity. Without clarity, people are left to interpret tone, read between the lines, and guess at what matters. That guessing rarely leads anywhere good. Most of the time, we take the LRI—the least respectful interpretation.

The conversation does not need to begin with a brutal declaration. It can begin with a simple question. We live in the world our questions create, so think carefully. What question will best break this ice? Perhaps, “Has something changed that is taking more of your time or making it harder to meet deadlines?” Or, “I made some pretty heavy edits on your last two reports—were you good with that?” Now the important part: Listen. With intensity. Show them that you are hearing with eye contact and by sharing what you heard.

We live in the world our questions create.

These exchanges build the conditions for what comes next. You want to be kind but you must be clear. If the conversation stays in questions, it becomes evasive. If it jumps straight to conclusions, it becomes adversarial. The effectiveness is in the sequence: understand first, then be forthright. “Here’s what I’m seeing. The last three deadlines were missed, and it’s created real strain on the team. We need to figure out how to change that.”

There is nothing especially soft about that statement, but it is fair. It is specific, grounded in observable behavior, and connected to real impact. It does not label the person or assign motive. It simply tells the truth in a way the other person can actually use.

That is where many leaders get it slightly wrong. They assume that softening the message will make it land better, when ambiguity creates anxiety, not lessen it. People are left trying to decode what you meant instead of understanding what needs to change. Clarity, delivered with respect, is far more useful than politeness wrapped in ambiguity.

Clarity, delivered with respect, is far more useful than politeness wrapped in ambiguity.

So yes, how we say things matters. It matters that we start with curiosity instead of assumption, that we describe behavior rather than judge character, and that we connect actions to their impact on others. But it also matters that we are willing to say the actual thing that needs to be said.

If last week’s question was How would they know? this week’s is a natural extension: have you made it possible for them to hear it?

Both matter. And neither works without the other.